check_sitemap

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses read-only nature, HTTP GET/HEAD requests (N+1 pattern), deterministic and rule-based processing (no LLM), and scope of validation. Since no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is concise (three paragraphs) with front-loaded purpose, followed by method, then usage guidelines. Every sentence is informative without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers all key aspects of sitemap validation without an output schema. Could mention return format or data structure, but the description is largely complete for an agent to understand what the tool does and its side effects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds context: domain parameter explains it tries /sitemap.xml then robots.txt, max_urls_to_check is a cap on sampled URLs each costing one HEAD. This goes beyond the schema alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool validates a domain's XML sitemap for presence, accessibility, URL count, lastmod freshness, sitemap-index handling, and image/video extensions. It distinguishes from siblings like audit_page and check_technical by specifying it is for site-wide indexing audits.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly provides when to use (site-wide indexing audits), suggests pairing with check_robots, and specifies alternatives for per-page checks (audit_page, check_technical). No ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.